Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

modernfarmer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 337 posts

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#121

Post by tptacek »

random4369 wrote: post #104
tptacek wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are in fact not declining. There is no indication at all that a reliable supply of bee-driven pollination service in the US is in any way threatened. You'd be forgiven for not knowing that, though, since the story is presented in the media as if farmers relied on wild honeybees (an invasive species eradicated several decades ago by the Varroa destructor mite) rather than commercially managed bee husbandry.

[Citation needed]

Happy to:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/23/call-...

That's the Washington Post noting bee colonies at a 20 year high (a timespan that includes the tail end of the original Varroa epidemic!) in late 2015.

Then, go look up pollination service prices since 2015 --- a trivial Google search! --- and compare them with inflation.

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#122

Post by aldoushuxley001 »

tptacek wrote: post #54
aldoushuxley001 wrote: post #46

The Monsanto astroturfing crew is working hard in this thread. Really astonishing to see people claiming that glyphosafe has been shown to safe.

You're looking for some other forum, where this dumb debate about glyphosate (a-t-e) hasn't been rehashed ad nauseam 50 times before ( quelle surprise , not everyone agrees with you!), and where you're actually allowed to accuse people who disagree with you of being "astroturfers". Here, on HN, if you believe someone is astroturfing, you quietly mail hn@ycombinator.com about and don't post it to the threads, where it…

I guess that's why HN has limited success.

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#123

Post by tptacek »

philipkglass wrote: post #118
tptacek wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no credible studies indicating that glyphosate is a carcinogen, and it would be a little bit surprising it if was, since it targets a metabolic pathway not present in animals. Meanwhile, many of the herbicides that glyphosate displace, plenty of which remain in use, are known human carcinogens. The most widely reported declaration of glyphosate's carcinogenicity, by IARC, was disavowed by the WHO, IARC's pa…

Yes, I agree that evidence to date does not show glyphosate is a carcinogen. But this: There are no credible studies indicating that glyphosate is a carcinogen, and it would be a little bit surprising it if was, since it targets a metabolic pathway not present in animals. is not a very strong argument. Harmful "off-target effects" are a very common cause of drug development program failures. Most chemicals that are p…

The evidence seems to suggest that glyphosate is basically inert in humans, doesn't it?

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#124

Post by freetime2 »

pmoriarty wrote: post #45

This reminds me of all the news reports of tests showing arsenic presence in rice (often due to rice being grown on soil where arsenic had been used as a pesticide for non-food crops such as cotton in the past). But what (if any) health effects did the detected amounts of arsenic in rice have? How how much arsenic in rice would be safe? The FDA investigated these questions and finally came out with a report: [1][2] A…

> Still, their research and report are quite helpful in understanding the risk of arsenic exposure in rice, so consumers can now make informed decisions in regards to their own rice consumption. I hope the FDA will do something like that for glyphosate in food.

My cynical side thinks that is far too nuanced a finding for consumers to be able to make informed decision. People tend to like black and white answers like "no carbs", "no gluten", or my personal favorite "no chemicals".

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#125

Post by nothrabannosir »

tptacek wrote: post #84
kaitai wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't agree; know too many hobbyist beekeepers who've had 20-40 years beekeeping who can't keep a hive alive through a winter now. When I was a kid peoples' hives survived a harsh Minnesota winter. Now they all die even though we don't have enough snow to ski.

We don't have to guess or extrapolate from anecdotes; the price of pollination services are tracked, and have grown low single-digit percentages over the last several years, just like prices in general.

Complete outsider to this: any chance that is due to external factors, such as increase in number of competitors (perhaps foreign), or reduced demand (e.g. new alternatives)?

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#126

Post by [deleted] »

aldoushuxley001 wrote: post #122
tptacek wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're looking for some other forum, where this dumb debate about glyphosate (a-t-e) hasn't been rehashed ad nauseam 50 times before ( quelle surprise , not everyone agrees with you!), and where you're actually allowed to accuse people who disagree with you of being "astroturfers". Here, on HN, if you believe someone is astroturfing, you quietly mail hn@ycombinator.com about and don't post it to the threads, where it…

I guess that's why HN has limited success.

[deleted]

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#127

Post by mannykannot »

tptacek wrote: post #87
random4369 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, the jury was never out about vaccines, there's no scientific research claiming they are harmful. This scenario is not analogous to the grandparent post where scientific consensus is being actively manipulated by vested interests to delay regulatory action Doctors don't make vaccines. Pharmaceutical researchers do. And pharmaceutical manufacturers wouldn't blink twice before selling you drugs that they know are…

I can't really even understand what this comment is trying to say. Vaccines aren't harmful. But doctors don't make vaccines, pharma companies do. And pharma companies would gladly hurt you. Conclusion: ???.

I think what is meant (from the post in question, not necessarily your summary): cui bono arguments are particularly ineffective for those claiming vaccines are harmful, because doctors, who generally consider vaccines to be very effective and mostly harmless, are not particularly financially vested in the continued use of vaccines (unlike the manufacturers, presumably.) If the use of vaccines was curtailed, doctors would arguably have more work.

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#128

Post by cure »

briandear wrote: post #29
random4369 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time the jury is out on a topic where one side has a vested interest and a billion dollar budget to protect it, you can be reasonably sure what the outcome will be. See: pesticides and bees, fossil fuels and climate change, food packaging plastics and cancer, pain treatment meds and addiction. The answer in all those cases is the harmful effects eventually became known, but the jury was out long enough for the…

So every single time a “vested interest” cares about something, they are wrong? Environmental groups have a vested interest in promoting catastrophe as it increases fundraising and their influence and power. I am not saying that all environmental groups are “bad” or “wrong” but they have equal incentive to trumpet their view of the world. You don’t think billion dollar alternative energy companies don’t have incentiv…

The "vested interests" have the sole purpose of making money for their shareholders. They are corporations, and that is the definition of capitalism.

The purpose of environmental groups is to protect the environment.

Who would be the most likely to act benevolently?

Are the environmentalists perfect? No. They are human. They make mistakes. Sometimes they do things that are counterproductive or totally ineffective. But their goal is to protect the environment. I'd call that benevolence.

On the whole, it's also far more likely for the environmentalists to get hurt or killed than the other way around. In 2017, four environmentalists were killed every week by the "vested interests". Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/02/almost-f...

To summarize, your argument seems to be something like "Hey, look, the environmentalists are not perfect, we can't trust anyone, so we must stop attacking the polluters, they must be totally innocent!".

And that's just FUD.

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#129

Post by tomhoward »

aldoushuxley001 wrote: post #122
tptacek wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're looking for some other forum, where this dumb debate about glyphosate (a-t-e) hasn't been rehashed ad nauseam 50 times before ( quelle surprise , not everyone agrees with you!), and where you're actually allowed to accuse people who disagree with you of being "astroturfers". Here, on HN, if you believe someone is astroturfing, you quietly mail hn@ycombinator.com about and don't post it to the threads, where it…

I guess that's why HN has limited success.

The more successful forums where members delight in having their discussions degenerate into paranoid conspiracy mongering are eagerly awaiting your arrival.

Re: Emails Show FDA Chemists Have Been Finding Glyphosate in Food

#130

Post by headsoup »

tptacek wrote: post #119
headsoup wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another fallacy: relative privation. Let's not worry about the bees and pesticides because of bigger problems. I think the problem here is that over-emphasis, bluster and hyperbole are so normalised and frequent now that the use of emphasis to try and draw attention to an issue is now practically useless (maybe it was never useful...). Perhaps we shouldn't worry about any of these 'small problems' because we're worki…

No, once again, the glossary of logical fallacies you're working from isn't serving you well. I would be arguing relative privation if I was saying "things are so bad elsewhere it doesn't matter if the bees were dying", or "the bees are dying and that's all that really matters". In fact, what I'm saying is that the bees are pretty much fine, and not an issue at all.

A matter of differences between intent and actions I guess, you suggested the concern should be redirected to habitat.

How fine is 'pretty much?' How not-fine should we let it get before we show concern?

This seems to be general sentiment in that we are not overly concerned about the impact to wildlife until it becomes 'endangered,' at which point we need to act...

Post reply on HN